Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> There's a backwards-compatibility argument for not changing this behavior,
>> sure, but I don't buy the other arguments you made here. And I don't
>> think there's all that much to the backwards-compatibility argument,
>> considering that the current behavior is to fail.
> With regarding to keeping the backwards-compatibility, to add a new paramater
> to has_*_privilege functions is a solution as proposed previously.
> has_table_privilege(user, table, privilege[, consider_schema=false])
> How do you think this proposal?
I think that'd be a disaster, because we already have variants of these
functions with several different parameter counts. Adding optional
arguments to them will cause ambiguous-function errors where there were
none before.
Also, it's just plain ugly. We should either decide we want this change,
or decide we don't. Trying to have it both ways is not going to be
better.
regards, tom lane
